R.J. Furuli wrote:This definition is rather general, and I agree with this definition. The key words are “temporal view,” and they must be defined. Particularly important is the word “view” and its definition. In the more detailed SIL definitions, I find two basic errors. 1) The view seems to be that aspects are universal and not language-specific (=aspects are not different in different languages).

Of course not language specific, this is a functional definition, not a formal definition.

The question then becomes, does the language I’m studying conjugate for the function of aspect? For Biblical Hebrew, no.

To give another example, Russian (a language I briefly studied but have forgotten most of what I learned) does conjugate for aspect. It has past perfective, and past imperfective, present perfective, present imperfective, future perfective, future imperfective, depending on the time-related type of action. Therefore Russian conjugates for the function called “aspect”.

R.J. Furuli wrote:2) By listing different kinds of aspect, aktionsart and aspect are confused.

Sorry, but this sentence doesn’t make sense.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Below are two other definitions that may be considered:B.M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (1990, p. 31) shows the difference between aktionsart and aspect:“Aktionsart involves how the action actually occurs; reflects the external objective facts of the occurrence; focuses on something outside the speaker. “Aspect involves a way of viewing the action; reflects the subjective conception or portrayal by the speaker; focuses on the speaker’s representation of the action.”

To be blunt, this definition is weird and has no relation to standard linguistic practice.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Carlota Smith, The Parameter of Aspect (1991, p. 91) defines aspect in the following way:“Aspectual viewpoints functions like the lens of a camera, making objects visible to the receiver. Situations are the objects on which viewpoint lenses are trained. And just as a camera lens is necessary to make an object visible for a picture, so viewpoints are necessary to make visible the situation talked about in a sentence.”

Another weird definition, that completely ignores the standard linguistic emphasis on a temporal view.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Both these authors indicate that aspect is a subjective viewpoint; compare the word “view” in the SIL definition. I think that if you ask SIL, you will get the answer that aspect is a subjective property.

I have no choice but to reject what both authors wrote, if I work in linguistics. Those statements may make grand philosophy or fancy sounding theology, but they’re not linguistics.

R.J. Furuli wrote:An example of the confusion between aktionsart and aspect is the SIL definition of “Iterative aspect": “Iterative aspect is an aspect that expresses the repetition of an event or state.” There is no such thing as an “iterative aspect.”

All standard definitions of “aspect” that I have learned from include the “iterative aspect”.

“Aktionsart” on the other hand, I never heard in a study of linguistics. I heard it plenty from theologians, almost totally from liberal theologians who don’t believe the Bible, to give reasons how they think the Bible is false.

R.J. Furuli wrote:

R.J. Furuli wrote:The difference between our understanding of aspect is that I connect aspect with the verb forms, while you connect it with functions.

K.W. Randolph answered:Conjugation is where there is a specific form or combination of words to express a particular function. If a language doesn’t have either a specific form or combination of words to express a certain function, then it doesn’t conjugate for that function.

You used function as the standard to come to the conclusion that Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for tense.

Should you not be consistent and continue to use function when addressing the question of aspect?

Function is the way I think, so naturally I use function when addressing this question.

You have not answered my question whether the wayyiqtols, yiqtols, participles, and infinitives all are perfective, because they express completed actions in the past. It would be fine if you answered this question, so I can understand your thinking.

What are called “participles” in Hebrew are not a verbal form, rather act like the English gerunds (noun pointing to an action) or nouns referring to the actors. Translation often loses the nuances of Biblical Hebrew use and merely treats them as verbs.

Infinitives are temporally independent forms.

Yiqtols, Wayyiqtols, Qatals, Weqatals are all used sometimes to express the perfective function, sometimes the imperfective function. Therefore we cannot call any of these forms intrinsically perfective nor imperfective.

R.J. Furuli wrote:I did not use function to reach the conclusion that Hebrew verbs do not express tenses. I used form + function to reach that conclusion. If I understand you correctly, you use only function to reach the conclusion the Hebrew neither has tense nor aspect.

I look at the form, then ask “What functions are expressed using this form?” When looking at Biblical Hebrew, I found that all point time references—past, present, future—are expressed by all conjugations of Hebrew verbs. Therefore Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for tense. I also found that all conjugations of Biblical Hebrew verbs are used to express the different functions covered under “aspect”, therefore Biblical Hebrew doesn’t conjugate for aspect either.

R.J. Furuli wrote:There are two knots that must be loosened when an understanding of Hebrew verbs is sought.1) Why are yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol constructed differently, and why are qatal and weqatal constructed differently?

For me the question is not why the different forms are constructed differently, rather finding that these forms exist, what are the functions that the forms convey? In studying that question, yes, there are semantic differences, but those differences are not time related, neither tense nor aspect.

R.J. Furuli wrote:2) Why are there different temporal references between wayyiqtol, yiqtol, weyiqtol, qatal, and weqatal?

I find no different temporal references between those forms. I find differences, but they’re not temporal.

I resepct you as a person, and I respect your viewpoints. But when you call the definitions of aspect by Fanning and Smith as weird, and that they have "no relation to standard linguistic practice," i find it right to end my contributions to this discussion. Thank you for expressing your viewpoints.

R.J. Furuli wrote:But when you call the definitions of aspect by Fanning and Smith as weird, and that they have "no relation to standard linguistic practice," i find it right to end my contributions to this discussion.

Their ideas concerning aspect are so different from what I’ve heard from all other sources, that I was at a loss for words. Those are not linguistic definitions of aspect. They may be valid definitions of something, but here we’re talking linguistics.

I’ve studied a few languages where the question of aspect came up, as well as analyzed linguistic claims that Biblical Hebrew conjugations referred to aspect and have studied linguistics: in each case the definition of aspect was an objective functional measure of time and the same for all languages.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Thank you for expressing your viewpoints.

Those are not just my viewpoints.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Best regards,

Rolf J. FuruliStavernNorway

Yes, we have reached an impasse where further discussion won’t resolve anything.

Long answer: The presence of the waw merely indicates that what follows is more information. In narrative, that “more information” usually consists of what follows as in the next events. But often it consists of more information about a subject, an example being Isaiah 53:2 “…that we should desire just him” “that” being the waw that introduces more information. There are many more just like that.

As far as grammar is concerned, Daniel 9:27 gives further information about the destruction mentioned in verse 26. It’s concurrent, not consecutive.

In narratives where wayyiqtols are used, one event follows the other in consecution. But because the waw is a conjunction, there are many instances where there is no consecution: 1 Samuel 1:17: "Eli answered (וַיַּ֧עַן) and said (וַיֹּ֖אמֶר)"; 2 Kings 18:28: "And the commander stood (וַֽיַּעֲמֹד֙) and called out (וַיִּקְרָ֥א) in a loud voice in Hebrew, and he spoke (וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר) and he said (וַיֹּ֔אמֶר)."

As regards weqatal, there is even less consecution. So, the weqatal at the beginning of Daniel 9:27 does not definitely tell us that the events of verse 27 follow the events of verse 26. We should keep on mind that it is the context that can show whether actions follow each other or occur at the same time, and not the conjugations. However, in this case the context indicates that a part of the actions of verse 27 follows the actions of verse 26. I will elucidate that. I translate Daniel 9:26, 27 in the following way:

26 After sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off and have nothing. And the people of a leader who will come will destroy the city and the holy place. And its end will come by the flood. Until the end there will be war, and desolations have been decided. 27 He will let the covenant prevail for the many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. And upon the wings of abominations the one causing desolation will come. And this will be until the complete destruction, because that which is decided will gush forth upon the one becoming desolate.

As for the context, the prophecy deals with 70 weeks (sevens). The splitting up of 70 in 7+62+1, suggests that different events would happen in each period—one possibility being that it would take 49 years to restore and build Jerusalem.

Verse 25 shows that the 70 weeks is connected with Jewish nation. Of the accomplishments related to the Jewish nation, there are “to terminate transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for misdeeds.” The tree words “transgression, sin, and misdeed” can be translated in different ways. But they all relates to atonement for sin. This theme is continued in verse 27, “he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.” Seemingly, the words in verses 24 and 27 point in two directions, 1) to atone for sin, and 2) the instruments used to atone for sin (sacrifices) should cease. However, the words may point in the same direction.

Seemingly, there is also a problem with the Anointed One: He will come after 7+72 weeks (v 25), and he will be cut off after 7+62 weeks. Seemingly, the anointed one will come and die at the same moment. The solution to this problem is the word “after” (אַחֲרֵ֤י). You have previously argued that this word does not necessarily mean “immediately after.” When we look at the uses of this word, we see that this view is correct. Corroborating this are the words in v. 26 that the city and the holy place will be destroyed, and these words are also connected with “after sixty-two weeks.” A possible understanding is that the anointed one should arrive after 7+62 weeks, and sometime after the end of 62nd week, the anointed one would be cut off, and some time after the end of the 62nd week the city and the holy place would be destroyed.

The issue of how long time after the end of 72nd week the anointed one would be cut off, relates to the very purpose of the 70 weeks, namely “to atone for sin.” When the holy place was destroyed, “sacrifice and gift offerings” would physically cease. But that would be the very opposite of the purpose of the 70 weeks, namely, “to atone for sin.” In the Tanach, we find different ideas in different books pointing in the same direction. We should be very cautious when we combine these ideas, because what we see as parallels need not really be so. However, there is one passage in the prophets that deal with the same issue as that of the 70 weeks, to atone for sin. This is Isaiah chapter 53, where YHWH’s servant would atone for the sins of the people by his death. If Daniel expresses the same idea, the anointed one will arraive at the end of the 62nd week, and he will be cut off in the middle of the following week, the 70th one. And just as in connection with YHWH’s servant, the death of the anointed one would “atone for sin,” and therefore, there would no need for sacrifices for sin any more, and they would cease.

Since there are 70 weeks, the one week in the middle of which sacrifice and gift offering would cease, which is mentioned in verse 27, must occur after the 62nd week. So, the context, and not the conjugations shows that the one week mentioned in verse 27 follows the 69 weeks.

If the present suggestion is correct, Jerusalem was restored and built during 7 weeks (49 years). After that 62 weeks (434 years) elapsed, and at the end of 69 weeks (483 years), the anointed one arrived. Then followed 1 week (7 years), and in the middle of this week, the anointed on was cut off. Some time after the end of the 62th week the city and the holy place would be destroyed.

Long answer: The presence of the waw merely indicates that what follows is more information. In narrative, that “more information” usually consists of what follows as in the next events. But often it consists of more information about a subject, an example being Isaiah 53:2 “…that we should desire just him” “that” being the waw that introduces more information. There are many more just like that.

As far as grammar is concerned, Daniel 9:27 gives further information about the destruction mentioned in verse 26. It’s concurrent, not consecutive.

Karl W. Randolph.

Isa 53:2 .. And there is no beauty that we should desire him. It is not uncommon for waw-consecutive to be translated as "that"."that we should desire him" comes after in time "there is no beauty".

R.J. Furuli wrote:In narratives where wayyiqtols are used, one event follows the other in consecution. But because the waw is a conjunction, there are many instances where there is no consecution: 1 Samuel 1:17: "Eli answered (וַיַּ֧עַן) and said (וַיֹּ֖אמֶר)"; 2 Kings 18:28: "And the commander stood (וַֽיַּעֲמֹד֙) and called out (וַיִּקְרָ֥א) in a loud voice in Hebrew, and he spoke (וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר) and he said (וַיֹּ֔אמֶר)."

These examples are not convincing to me either. In the case of 1Sam 1:17 'Eli answered and said', the phrase 'answered and said' is very common. The order is always "answered and said", never "said and answered". The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn, and so precedes speaking in responding. I do not think the answering ends and then the saying begins, but the answering starts first and then the saying.

In the case of 2Kings 18:28, we would expect that first he stood, and while still standing called out with a loud voice, getting everyone's attention, and then spoke and said. ‎ אָמַ֣ר and ‎ דִּבֶּר are very common in Tanach. When used together, the order is always ‎ דִּבֶּר first and then אָמַ֣ר. I do not know the difference in meaning between the 2 verbs. אָמַ֣ר may be more conversational, but that would not be sufficient to explain why dabar always precedes amar. I see that Rabshakeh's speech starts with proclamations and ends with questions that he asks the people. I do not think speaking ends and then saying begins, but speaking starts first.

Or it could be, when you have waw-consecutive verbs following eachother with the same subject and object, or without object, they act as a group following the event preceding the group. It would be cumbersome to repeat the subject in order to have the "and" prefixed to the subject. This is the way I understand it when reading the Hebrew.

I think a better test would be this: to take chapters and look at the waw-consecutives and non-waw-consecutive verbs there and see if we see a deliberate use of waw-consecutives for sequential actions and non-waw consecutives for concurrent or parenthetical actions or breaks in the narrative.In my reading, this is what I think I have seen continually, but I may be biased. I recently looked at Prov 31, and that is what I saw there.I suggest we look at the 3 chapters mentioned here: Isa 53, 1Sam 1 and 2Ki 18. 1 prophecy and 2 narratives. If a chapter is all waw-consecutives, and all the actions are sequential, it means nothing in this test, and we would need to choose a different chapter. I have not looked at these 3 chapters before in this way, or at least I don't remember doing so. If you think this is an ok test, I'll do the work.

Rolf, thanks for your explanation of Dan 9. I would like to discuss that later after discussing the above.

R.J. Furuli wrote: In narratives where wayyiqtols are used, one event follows the other in consecution. But because the waw is a conjunction, there are many instances where there is no consecution: 1 Samuel 1:17: "Eli answered (וַיַּ֧עַן) and said (וַיֹּ֖אמֶר)"; 2 Kings 18:28: "And the commander stood (וַֽיַּעֲמֹד֙) and called out (וַיִּקְרָ֥א) in a loud voice in Hebrew, and he spoke (וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר) and he said (וַיֹּ֔אמֶר)."

Steve Miller wrote:These examples are not convincing to me either. In the case of 1Sam 1:17 'Eli answered and said', the phrase 'answered and said' is very common. The order is always "answered and said", never "said and answered". The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn, and so precedes speaking in responding. I do not think the answering ends and then the saying begins, but the answering starts first and then the saying.

In the case of 2Kings 18:28, we would expect that first he stood, and while still standing called out with a loud voice, getting everyone's attention, and then spoke and said. ‎ אָמַ֣ר and ‎ דִּבֶּר are very common in Tanach. When used together, the order is always ‎ דִּבֶּר first and then אָמַ֣ר.I do not know the difference in meaning between the 2 verbs. אָמַ֣ר may be more conversational, but that would not be sufficient to explain why dabar always precedes amar. I see that Rabshakeh's speech starts with proclamations and ends with questions that he asks the people. I do not think speaking ends and then saying begins, but speaking starts first.

We must remember that waw is a conjunction, which can express both consecution and that two events occur at the same time. There are many clauses in the Tanach where the actions of two wayyiqtols are concurrent:

2 Kings 18:28, (stood, and called, and spoke, and said) 1 Chron 29:22 (ate and drank),Ruth 3:7 (ate and drank, and was in good spirit)2 Sam 1:12 (mourned and wept and fasted)1 Sam 19:12 (went, and fled, and escaped)1 Sam 8:3 (turned after unjust profit, accepted bribes, and perverted justice)

I have a long list of concurrent actions expressed by wayyiqtols. I also have a long list of actions with the same time reference, the first action being expressed by a yiqtol, because a word element precedes the yiqtol, and therefore a waw cannot be attached, and the second action is expressed by a wayyiqtol:

I think a better test would be this: to take chapters and look at the waw-consecutives and non-waw-consecutive verbs there and see if we see a deliberate use of waw-consecutives for sequential actions and non-waw consecutives for concurrent or parenthetical actions or breaks in the narrative.In my reading, this is what I think I have seen continually, but I may be biased. I recently looked at Prov 31, and that is what I saw there.I suggest we look at the 3 chapters mentioned here: Isa 53, 1Sam 1 and 2Ki 18. 1 prophecy and 2 narratives. If a chapter is all waw-consecutives, and all the actions are sequential, it means nothing in this test, and we would need to choose a different chapter. I have not looked at these 3 chapters before in this way, or at least I don't remember doing so. If you think this is an ok test, I'll do the work.

The approach you suggest is very fine. I have followed this approach in my doctoral dissertation. It is entitled: A New Understanding of the Verbal System in Classical Hebrew. An Attempt to Distinguish Between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. (508 pages). It is based on an analysis of all the 79,574 finite and infinite verbs in the Tanakh, the DSS, the old Hebrew inscriptions and Ben Sira. It took 10 years of continuous work to complete the dissertation.

It is clear that most wayyiqtols express consecution, as also is your observation. There are pragmatic reasons behind the 93,1% with past reference. Most of them occur in narratives with past reference, and they are sentence initial. In narratives, one event follows the other, and the tool that moves the narrative forward is the conjunction waw—he did this, and he did that, and he did that. There are also 1,027 yiqtols with past reference. Many of the yiqtols with past reference occur in clauses with wayyiqtols, and the yiqtols have a word element preceding them that prevents the way-element from being attached, as I have shown above. Of the 1,217 weyiqtols, 50 (4,4%) have past reference.

I explain the differences between yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol as phonological and not semantic. In the recitation or chanting of the text in the synagogue, the stress patterns were different in past contexts compared with present and future contexts. When the stress was moved toward the beginning of a verb in past contexts, the morphology (open and closed syllables) of the verb would change because of the phonological rules.

Some time after the Masoretes, the differences between qatal and weqatal on the one hand, and between yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol on the other, that were introduced for the chanting of the text in the synagogue—thus being pragmatic— were mistakenly taken as being semantic, and the result was the belief that Hebrew have four of five different conjuagtions.

My forthcoming book Can We Trust the Bible? With Focus on the Creation Account, the Worldwide Flood, and the Prophecies has a translation and analysis of Isaiah 53. Because this is a prophecy, all verbs, except three, have future reference. (The so-called "prophetic perfect" does not exist. This is a psychological explanation that requires a reading of the minds of the Bible writers. It was introduced in the 19th century in order to save the theory that the qatals (not weqatals)reprsent past tense, when hundreds of qatals (not weqatals) with future reference were found.)

ISAIAH 53:2-12

2 He will grow up (wayyiqtol) like a tender plant before him, and like a root from the dry ground. He will not have a form of majesty that we would look (weqatal) at him, and nothing in his appearance that we should desire (weqatal) him. 3 He will be… like one from whom men hide their faces, and we will hold him of no account (qatal).4. Surely, our sicknesses he will carry (qatal), and our pains he will bear (qatal). We will consider him (qatal) as plagued, stricken by God, and afflicted.5. And he will be pierced (participle) for our transgressions, and he will be crushed (participle) for our sins. 6. Like sheep all of us have gone astray (qatal); each of us has turned (qatal) to his own way. And YHWH will let the misdeed of us all meet (qatal) him.7. He will be oppressed (qatal) and he will be suffering (participle); but he will not open (yiqtol) his mouth. Like a sheep he will be lead (yiqtol) to the slaughter; but like an ewe before its shearers is silent (qatal), he will not open (yiqtol) his mouth. 8. By oppression and judgment he will be taken away (qatal), and who will meditate (yiqtol) on his generation? For he will be cut off (qatal) from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he will be stricken (no verb). 9. He will give (wayyiqtol) him a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death, although he did (qatal) no violence, and there was (no verb) no deception in his mouth.10. And YHWH will take delight (qatal) in crushing him, and he will cause (qatal) him to suffer, when his soul lays down (yiqtol) the gift offering, he will see (yiqtol) his offspring and he will prolong (yiqtol) his days. And the delight of YHWH will prosper (weqatal) in his hand. 11. Because of the trouble of his soul that he will see (yiqtol), he will be satisfied (yiqtol). Because of his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will cause many to become righteous (yiqtol). And the sins of many he will bear (yiqtol). 12. Therefore I will give him (yiqtol) a portion among the many. And he will divide (yiqtol) the spoil among the mighty. Because he will throw away (qatal) his soul to death, and he will be counted (qatal) among transgressors. He himself will carry (qatal) the sin of many people, and for transgressors he will be pleading (yiqtol).

In these verses there are 18 qatals, 15 yiqtols, 2 weyiqtols, and 2 wayyiqtols.. Except for the two qatals in verse 6 and the one in verse 9, all the finite verbs must have the same future reference, because the chapter is a prophecy about the future. This chapter is a future "narrative," and it can be an interesting study how the waws are used, and when they are not used. That depends to a great degree on theme/topic and rheme/comment. Differences in theme and rheme may be caused by pronouns and nouns, and by the use of waw. There are 28 waws in the chapter; four of them are prefixed to personal pronouns, and two personal pronouns are without waw. A study of why some words have prefixed waws and other do not have waws, will be rewarding.

R.J. Furuli wrote:We must remember that waw is a conjunction, which can express both consecution and that two events occur at the same time. There are many clauses in the Tanach where the actions of two wayyiqtols are concurrent:

2 Kings 18:28, (stood, and called, and spoke, and said) 1 Chron 29:22 (ate and drank),Ruth 3:7 (ate and drank, and was in good spirit)2 Sam 1:12 (mourned and wept and fasted)1 Sam 19:12 (went, and fled, and escaped)1 Sam 8:3 (turned after unjust profit, accepted bribes, and perverted justice)

Rolf,Thank you very much for your reply.The above are all similar to the previous list.Except for Ruth 3:7, all the concurrent verbs have the same subject, so think they are considered as a group following the action in the verse which precedes. Ruth 3:7 And Boaz ate and drank, and his heart was merryThe last action above in Ruth 3:7 has a different subject, and comes after eating and drinking. It does not have to mean that after he stopped eating and drinking, then his heart was merry, but after he ate and drank, his heart became merry, and he continued eating and drinking.

R.J. Furuli wrote:I have a long list of concurrent actions expressed by wayyiqtols. I also have a long list of actions with the same time reference, the first action being expressed by a yiqtol, because a word element precedes the yiqtol, and therefore a waw cannot be attached, and the second action is expressed by a wayyiqtol:

All these seem to me to be sequential actions except for Isa 44:15 "worship and bow down".Isa 44:15 ... He makes also a god and worships it. He makes it a graven image and bows down to it.In the above verse, the 2 wayyiqtols, "worships" and "bows down", follow in time the preceding yiqtol's, "makes" and "makes" respectively.

R.J. Furuli wrote:Steve Miller wrote:

I think a better test would be this: to take chapters and look at the waw-consecutives and non-waw-consecutive verbs there and see if we see a deliberate use of waw-consecutives for sequential actions and non-waw consecutives for concurrent or parenthetical actions or breaks in the narrative.In my reading, this is what I think I have seen continually, but I may be biased. I recently looked at Prov 31, and that is what I saw there.I suggest we look at the 3 chapters mentioned here: Isa 53, 1Sam 1 and 2Ki 18. 1 prophecy and 2 narratives. If a chapter is all waw-consecutives, and all the actions are sequential, it means nothing in this test, and we would need to choose a different chapter. I have not looked at these 3 chapters before in this way, or at least I don't remember doing so. If you think this is an ok test, I'll do the work.

The approach you suggest is very fine. I have followed this approach in my doctoral dissertation. It is entitled: A New Understanding of the Verbal System in Classical Hebrew. An Attempt to Distinguish Between Semantic and Pragmatic Factors. (508 pages). It is based on an analysis of all the 79,574 finite and infinite verbs in the Tanakh, the DSS, the old Hebrew inscriptions and Ben Sira. It took 10 years of continuous work to complete the dissertation.

It is clear that most wayyiqtols express consecution, as also is your observation. There are pragmatic reasons behind the 93,1% with past reference. Most of them occur in narratives with past reference, and they are sentence initial. In narratives, one event follows the other, and the tool that moves the narrative forward is the conjunction waw—he did this, and he did that, and he did that. There are also 1,027 yiqtols with past reference. Many of the yiqtols with past reference occur in clauses with wayyiqtols, and the yiqtols have a word element preceding them that prevents the way-element from being attached, as I have shown above. Of the 1,217 weyiqtols, 50 (4,4%) have past reference.

I explain the differences between yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol as phonological and not semantic. In the recitation or chanting of the text in the synagogue, the stress patterns were different in past contexts compared with present and future contexts. When the stress was moved toward the beginning of a verb in past contexts, the morphology (open and closed syllables) of the verb would change because of the phonological rules.

Some time after the Masoretes, the differences between qatal and weqatal on the one hand, and between yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and weyiqtol on the other, that were introduced for the chanting of the text in the synagogue—thus being pragmatic— were mistakenly taken as being semantic, and the result was the belief that Hebrew have four of five different conjuagtions.

My forthcoming book Can We Trust the Bible? With Focus on the Creation Account, the Worldwide Flood, and the Prophecies has a translation and analysis of Isaiah 53. Because this is a prophecy, all verbs, except three, have future reference. (The so-called "prophetic perfect" does not exist. This is a psychological explanation that requires a reading of the minds of the Bible writers. It was introduced in the 19th century in order to save the theory that the qatals (not weqatals)reprsent past tense, when hundreds of qatals (not weqatals) with future reference were found.)

Is there any difference between wayyiqtols and weyiqtols other than in the vowels? So would they be the same in the DSS?

R.J. Furuli wrote:ISAIAH 53:2-12

I'd like to include v11 Who has believed our report? and the arm of the Lord, upon whom is it revealed?

R.J. Furuli wrote:2 He will grow up (wayyiqtol) like a tender plant before him, and like a root from the dry ground. He will not have a form of majesty that we would look (weqatal) at him, and nothing in his appearance that we should desire (weqatal) him. 3 He will be… like one from whom men hide their faces, and we will hold him of no account (qatal).4. Surely, our sicknesses he will carry (qatal), and our pains he will bear (qatal). We will consider him (qatal) as plagued, stricken by God, and afflicted.5. And he will be pierced (participle) for our transgressions, and he will be crushed (participle) for our sins. 6. Like sheep all of us have gone astray (qatal); each of us has turned (qatal) to his own way. And YHWH will let the misdeed of us all meet (qatal) him.7. He will be oppressed (qatal) and he will be suffering (participle); but he will not open (yiqtol) his mouth. Like a sheep he will be lead (yiqtol) to the slaughter; but like an ewe before its shearers is silent (qatal), he will not open (yiqtol) his mouth. 8. By oppression and judgment he will be taken away (qatal), and who will meditate (yiqtol) on his generation? For he will be cut off (qatal) from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he will be stricken (no verb). 9. He will give (wayyiqtol) him a grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in his death, although he did (qatal) no violence, and there was (no verb) no deception in his mouth.10. And YHWH will take delight (qatal) in crushing him, and he will cause (qatal) him to suffer, when his soul lays down (yiqtol) the gift offering, he will see (yiqtol) his offspring and he will prolong (yiqtol) his days. And the delight of YHWH will prosper (weqatal) in his hand. 11. Because of the trouble of his soul that he will see (yiqtol), he will be satisfied (yiqtol). Because of his knowledge, the righteous one, my servant, will cause many to become righteous (yiqtol). And the sins of many he will bear (yiqtol). 12. Therefore I will give him (yiqtol) a portion among the many. And he will divide (yiqtol) the spoil among the mighty. Because he will throw away (qatal) his soul to death, and he will be counted (qatal) among transgressors. He himself will carry (qatal) the sin of many people, and for transgressors he will be pleading (yiqtol).

In these verses there are 18 qatals, 15 yiqtols, 2 weyiqtols, and 2 wayyiqtols.. Except for the two qatals in verse 6 and the one in verse 9, all the finite verbs must have the same future reference, because the chapter is a prophecy about the future. This chapter is a future "narrative," and it can be an interesting study how the waws are used, and when they are not used. That depends to a great degree on theme/topic and rheme/comment. Differences in theme and rheme may be caused by pronouns and nouns, and by the use of waw. There are 28 waws in the chapter; four of them are prefixed to personal pronouns, and two personal pronouns are without waw. A study of why some words have prefixed waws and other do not have waws, will be rewarding.

Rather compare the verbs for sequential vs concurrent usage, which is a valid study, I propose to compare the "and's" prefixed to verbs with the "and"'s prefixed to nouns for sequential vs concurrent usage. I'll ignore "and"'s in verbless clauses. In most, but not all, cases I counted participles as verbless. Here is the summary of what I counted:24 waw conjunctions excluding those introducing a verbless clause8 prefixed to subject (vv1,4,5,6,7,10x2,12). Of these 7 are concurrent, and the one in v4 "and we considered him stricken" could be taken either way.6 prefixed to other nouns (vv3,4,5,7,11,12). All concurrent2 wayyiqtol (vv2,9). all sequential2 weyiqtol (v2x2). all sequential3 prefixed to the particle et (vv8,12x2). 2 concurrent. The one in v8 "and his generation who shall meditate?" could be taken either way3 prefixed to the negative particle lo (vv3,7x2). all concurrent. These should probably not be counted because these indicate an action not taking place. So it seems that they would have to be concurrent like a verbless phrase.

(When the phrase introduced by "and" precedes in time the previous phrase, I called that concurrent above. Those are in v6 "And YHWH caused to meet on him the misdeed of us all." & v10 "And YHWH delighted in crushing him")

So, all the waws prefixed to verbs are sequential. 4/4All the waws prefixed to nouns (excluding verbless clauses) are concurrent excluding the ones that can be taken either way. 13/13All the waws prefixed to the particle et are concurrent excluding ones that can be taken either way. 2/2

This is evidence to me that "and's" prefixed to verbs are sequential actions and those prefixed to nouns and et are not.Next I will analyze the other 2 chapters we discussed.

It appears that you are struggling to preserve the teachings of a small English group known as the Plymouth Brethren and their rather nuanced view of prophesy—the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the millennium, after which the Ezekiel 38–39 war, after which the third temple: none, except the Ezekiel passage, of which I can find in Scripture. Maybe I’m too simple-minded, but there’s just too much eisegesis in that teaching for me to accept it. I look for the simple readings, exegesis. The only “evidence” for a seven year tribulation is taking Daniel 9:27 out of context with verse 26 and before. But if verse 27 is concurrent with the second half of verse 26 giving more information concerning the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt of 66 AD which it clearly fits and which the context seems to indicate, then that tower of speculation concerning the seven year tribulation, with an anti-Christ defiling the third temple midway through that tribulation, etc. etc. all comes tumbling down.

SteveMiller wrote:Isa 53:2 .. And there is no beauty that we should desire him. It is not uncommon for waw-consecutive to be translated as "that". "that we should desire him" comes after in time "there is no beauty".

Take the whole verse: “that he should ascend like a sucker (in botany, an unwanted growth from the root of a tree) before him, and like a root from an arid land, he doesn’t have good form and no grandeur, and should we look at him, that he doesn’t have looks that we should desire specifically him.” When we look at “that we should desire specifically him” is concurrent with “he doesn’t have looks” though you might argue that it comes after “should we look at him”. Other “and”s in the verse are clearly concurrent, not consecutive.

SteveMiller wrote:The Hebrew verb 'answer' has the meaning of turn

From where do you get that meaning? Do you have any Bible verses that have that meaning?

An answer is not necessarily spoken, hence to emphasize that the answer is spoken, “he answered and said”.

SteveMiller wrote:אָמַ֣ר and ‎ דִּבֶּר are very common in Tanach. When used together, the order is always ‎ דִּבֶּר first and then אָמַ֣ר. I do not know the difference in meaning between the 2 verbs.

Again, אמר specifically refers to the spoken word, דבר has more the idea of expression, which can be by pointing or other non-verbal means. Usually, however, the expressing is done verbally. But to emphasize that the expression is spoken, אמר is used too.

Not the first and third ones in verse 2, as I mentioned above, nor the one beginning verse 9, which gives more information concerning the action already mentioned in verse 8.

When we take verse two in context with verse one, verse two starts the message mentioned in verse one, hence the first waw should again be translated as “that”.

Out of the four waws prefixed on Yiqtol verbs, three are clearly concurrent, and the fourth can be taken either way. The context and grammar favors that last one to be concurrent.

Narration of history will be a whole different kettle of fish̦—the very nature of history is that one event follows another. Hence analyzing narration of history won’t give you an answer that can be convincing to others.